In contrast to what the noble Justice Dhingra has written, please read the drivel dished out by the leading Indian Feminazi, Indira Jaising. Here is the link to the IE article titled Family Against Woman. I believe it should have been titled Woman Against Family:

Below is what the judges of the Supreme Court had to say about this badly drafted law, and this is what Indira Jaising is moaning.

“20. If the aforesaid submission is accepted, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with the husband’s father, husband’s paternal grand parents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces etc. If the interpretation canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respondent is accepted, all these houses of the husband’s relatives will be shared households and the wife can well insist in living in the all these houses of her husband’s relatives merely because she had stayed with her husband for some time in those houses in the past.

Such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd.. It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted.

—-

23. No doubt, the definition of ‘shared household’ in Section 2(s) of the Act is not very happily worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in society.”

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.

Hello !! This is a carte blanche to legally occupy the home of anyone unfortunate enough to have had a “domestic relationship” with a woman in India. A woman who has been in a domestic relationship, now has more power than the PM or the CM to strip a person of his right to own his own property. It is no wonder that the SC called it a clumsily drafted law.

Like this:

Related

12 Responses to “Indira Jaising Moans On The First Anniversary Of The “Clumsily Drafted” DV Act”

Instead of accepting her share of responsibility for the “very very poorly drafted” DV Act, she is desparately trying to intimidate and discredit the judiciary, who are upholding the principles of justice in the face of malicious propaganda by the feminists.
Thanks for exposing the truth about Indira Jaising.

“Family against Women or 21st century Women against family?”
Last few Months all Indian Media (NDTV/CNN-IBN/IBN7/ZEE/India TV) started to justify that “Divorce is not a dirty word today”, as in Delhi itself more than 9000 Divorce cases filed and more than 55% filed by Women only.

Seems it was a dirty word till the time Men filed more Divorce cases, long back, but as now a days it is the women who are filling the Divorce cases more than man, so it should not be treated as “Dirty Word”.

But, they never disclose that, in each and every Divorce cases, it is the Husband who had been treated as a “Free ATM Machine” in front of Judge/Police/Media and more than 98% cases it is the wife’s family demanded or taken huge money from the husbands family, let the marriage lasted for 15 days or 15 years.

Wherever the husband refused to be treated as free ATM machine, by our great LAW like DV act and 498A, they termed as Criminal and open Legal terrorism start. In some cases the wife stay in USA/Dubai and send their Domestic Violence Complain through mail/post, whose Husbands are living in India and our Judges happily taken the same as acceptance, as any one can file the domestic violence against husband’s family on behalf of a women, and immediately pass the interim order, that he should not go to media to say the truth, ask to deposited the Passport, interim maintenance in the range of 10K, 15k let her stay at USA or Dubai, it does not matter.

The harassment does not end here, he have fight now three maintenance case for the same purpose along with DV act, section24, section125 (some time in three different state) and our Judges happily pass the judgments as per their view, without considering that it is the wastage of valuable time of Judiciary, for a same purpose three different case filed, where as millions of cases are awaiting for getting justice.

Simply wish to say your article is as astonishing. The clearness in your publish is just spectacular and i could suppose you’re knowledgeable on this subject. Fine along with your permission let me to clutch your feed to keep updated with impending post. Thank you one million and please keep up the enjoyable work.

Misc

State Police Websites

Top Rated Posts

Some Interesting Stats On Arrests Of Women

In 1930, the British govt arrested 17,000 women for their involvement in the Dandi Yatra (Salt March).
During 1937 to 1947 (10 Years), they arrested 5,000 women involved in the freedom struggle.
From 2004 to 2006, the govt of India arrested 90,000 women of all ages under 498A. On the average, 27,000 women per year are being arrested under this flawed law. These are stats from the NCRB.

Disclaimer:

The family of the writer was tortured by the Indian Police in an attempt to extort over a $100,000 by holding them in custody for over a week. The police, in cahoots with the magistrate and the PP, did this due to the ridiculous allegations made in a 498A case by his embittered ex-wife. She filed the case years after he and his family had last seen her. Thousands of 498A cases are filed each year in India by women seeking to wreak vengeance on their husbands and in-laws. Enormous sums are extorted from intimidated families implicated in these cases by corrupt Indian police officers and elements of the Indian judiciary. The author and his family haven't bribed any public official nor have they given in to the extortion. This blog aims to raise awareness of due process in India. The content of this blog constitutes, opinions, observations, and publicly available documents. The intent is not to slander or defame anyone or any institution and is the manifestation of the author's right to freedom of expression – with all the protections this right guarantees.